Royal Navy to deploy nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands

Einhard

I am pie wrote: »

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

And the British have stated they are open to dialgoue if the Falklanders were in support of it. They don't, so what exactly would such dialogue achieve?

I think you're being very naive if you think the Argentianians are simply interested in some vague, general dialogue on the issue.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

This really isn't tue. The recent deployments have been entirely routine. Considering the Argentinians have a history of military aggression in the area, I'm note sure I'd blame the British for being somewhat cautious in defending the islanders rights to self-determination.

The British war machine manufactures yet another phantom bogey man.

Have you been watching or reading the reports coming out of Argentina. The proposals to call the football league after the General Belgrano? The decision to prevent Falkland registered vessels from landing on the mainland of South America? The pressure brought to bear to have Chilean fligts suspended, thus breaking a vital link between some islanders and their homeland?

woodoo wrote: »

I hope the Argentinians get to block the Chile flight. And if the Falklanders love being British so much they can all board that big ship and move to England.

That makes you anti-democratic. You obviously have no respect for the concept of democratic self-determination. Considering you so obviously endorse neo-colonialism, I'm surprised you're not also in thrall to the British empire of old. I mean, forcing people under one's sovereignty is colonialism whoever is doing it.

Einhard

BostonB wrote: »

That wouldn't make much sense considering, its was under france for 3 years spain for 44 and the uk for 188 yrs.

I don't really understand why Argentina wants it. Is there some natural resource there of interest that is more valuable than anything they already have?

Apparently there are potentially very valuable natural resources in the territorial waters of the Falklands which the Argentinians want to get their hands on. Also, it's a pretty good distraction from the dire economic figures in Argentina.

Also, it allows some hypocrites on boards to talk out of both sides of their mouth, condemning British colonialism while applauding Argentinian attempts at the same.

BostonB

Seems like colonialism from both sides. So it will end up being which ever side is stronger. Or if the local population changes its mind (unlikely).

secondopinion

I am pie wrote: »

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

The British war machine manufactures yet another phantom bogey man.

The 'phantom bogey man' actually invaded The Falkland Islands within living memory.

What would this 'dialogue' involve? What is it they wish to discuss?

secondopinion

woodoo wrote: »

I hope the Argentinians get to block the Chile flight. And if the Falklanders love being British so much they can all board that big ship and move to England.

I suppose you feel that all Irish Republicans should get on a bus and move from Northern Ireland to The Irish Republic? That is if they love it so much...

secondopinion

BostonB wrote: »

Seems like colonialism from both sides. So it will end up being which ever side is stronger. Or if the local population changes its mind (unlikely).

Do you know what 'self determination' means? Is Hawaii a colony?

BostonB

secondopinion wrote: »

Do you know what 'self determination' means? Is Hawaii a colony?

Good example? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Bayonet_Constitution

The Falklands was originally colonialised. Besides what is your point. Do you think if the UK wasn't stronger that "self determination" would have dictated events. I don't think so. The UK hasn't got a good track record with "self determination" all things considered. Then theres this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/09/falkland-islands-oil-defend-poll_n_1265747.html

robinph

BostonB wrote: »

The UK hasn't got a good track record with "self determination" all things considered.

True, I'm not sure that Hong Kong was given much of a choice about being handed back to the Chinese. Those evil Brits, not letting the locals vote on the matter. :mad:

secondopinion

robinph wrote: »

True, I'm not sure that Hong Kong was given much of a choice about being handed back to the Chinese. Those evil Brits, not letting the locals vote on the matter. :mad:

Of course, China legally owned Hong Kong. I take your point though. In reality, those living in Hong Kong could have demanded self determination, but The UK could have done little to enforce such a demand.

BostonB

robinph wrote: »

True, I'm not sure that Hong Kong was given much of a choice about being handed back to the Chinese. Those evil Brits, not letting the locals vote on the matter. :mad:

Or was that China letting the locals vote on the matter?

Einhard

BostonB wrote: »

Seems like colonialism from both sides. So it will end up being which ever side is stronger. Or if the local population changes its mind (unlikely).

Not sure how it's colonialism on both sides. There was no native population there when the Brits arrived, and there wasn't even such a thing as the independent state of Argentina.

The bottom line is that the population of the islands want to remain British. People have to respect that. If they can't, they really have no right calling themselves democratic.

Jonny7

Einhard wrote: »

Not sure how it's colonialism on both sides. There was no native population there when the Brits arrived, and there wasn't even such a thing as the independent state of Argentina.

The bottom line is that the population of the islands want to remain British. People have to respect that. If they can't, they really have no right calling themselves democratic.

It really is as simple as that, but Argentina and some other SA countries are starting to affect trade, slow down flights, all that silliness.

Its a barely habitable as it is.

woodoo

secondopinion wrote: »

I suppose you feel that all Irish Republicans should get on a bus and move from Northern Ireland to The Irish Republic? That is if they love it so much...

No but the unionists can get the stennaline to scotland if the wish

BostonB

Einhard wrote: »

Not sure how it's colonialism on both sides. There was no native population there when the Brits arrived, and there wasn't even such a thing as the independent state of Argentina.

Collins English Dictionary defines colonialism as "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker peoples or areas."

Doesn't have to be about people. It was a land grab. I don't know the resons for, except its what they did back, then, certainly it was useful as a Naval station for a long time. Which is probably why it remained of interest for so long.

Einhard wrote: »

The bottom line is that the population of the islands want to remain British. People have to respect that. If they can't, they really have no right calling themselves democratic.

I don't entirely disagree. But as history demonstrates its not about the peoples wishes its about who is stronger. At the end of the day. That said I think the UK has the strong claim all things considered.

Fratton Fred

Ships "Rounding the Horn" were often battered by huge waves and high winds, so quite often had to put in for repair, more so if they were heading East.

Most of South America would have been Spanish territory so not always friendly to the British, the Navy station on the Falklands was a strategic south Atlantic base.

getz

i can add to that fred,both times i said round the cape it was rough,mind you nearer to home the bay of biscay was not that clever also,then there was the cape rollers off south africa[uncle albert syndrome ]

BostonB

Apart from ship repair. I think the Falklands was a important whaling base and would have been important for the oil etc from that. AFAIK it was also a coaling/fueling station and wireless relay station. I assume its also a staging point for the Antarctic. It has no such attraction for the Argentinians. There's also the fishing rights, and now oil etc. That has an attraction for everyone.

Einhard

BostonB wrote: »

Doesn't have to be about people. It was a land grab. I don't know the resons for, except its what they did back, then, certainly it was useful as a Naval station for a long time. Which is probably why it remained of interest for so long.

I read the "weaker" in that definition as modifying "areas" as well as "peoples" which would suggest that Collins' too sees colonialism as applying to populated peoples only.

Anyway, that's just pedantism. The point is that the Brits didn't subjugate anyone in their occupation of the Falklands, something about which the Argentinians have proven themselves to have absolutely no qualms.

I don't entirely disagree. But as history demonstrates its not about the peoples wishes its about who is stronger. At the end of the day. That said I think the UK has the strong claim all things considered.

Well if we going to apply the tenets of history to contemporary affairs, we'd be justifying slavery Central Africa and Assad's brutal massacres in Syria.

BostonB

Einhard wrote: »

...Well if we going to apply the tenets of history to contemporary affairs, we'd be justifying slavery Central Africa and Assad's brutal massacres in Syria.

I wasn't justifying anything. Just pointing out the reality.

BostonB

Einhard wrote: »

I read the "weaker" in that definition as modifying "areas" as well as "peoples" which would suggest that Collins' too sees colonialism as applying to populated peoples only.

Anyway, that's just pedantism. The point is that the Brits didn't subjugate anyone in their occupation of the Falklands, something about which the Argentinians have proven themselves to have absolutely no qualms....

Colonialism is usually accompanied by land grab of unpopulated areas. So I don't think its useful to separate the two. Especially in this case where it primarily served to control and influence the region that as you say had no UK citizens in it. I'm not making a moral judgement on it. But again that's the reality of why this situation exists.

That said I don't see that Argentina gaining control serves any higher purpose. Certainly not for population that now exists there.

But IMO its colonialism on both sides. That said I don't think its UK reason for being there anymore. They tried to cede control a few times, but its the local population that are blocking it.

Fratton Fred

BostonB wrote: »

Apart from ship repair. I think the Falklands was a important whaling base and would have been important for the oil etc from that. AFAIK it was also a coaling/fueling station and wireless relay station. I assume its also a staging point for the Antarctic. It has no such attraction for the Argentinians. There's also the fishing rights, and now oil etc. That has an attraction for everyone.

Wasn't it South Georgia that had the whaling base?

BostonB

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wasn't it South Georgia that had the whaling base?

It was the main one, but...

Other whaling stations - in the Falklands, in Chile and around Antarctica
There were several other whaling stations in sub-Antarctic waters, though none of them lasted long. This is a topic where researches tend to spread beyond the immediate waters surrounding South America, at least partly because facts found by accident when looking at one area are unlikely to have been published anywhere else.

New Island, West Falkland
Christian Salvesen operated a whaling base at New Island off West Falkland from 1909 to 1915 (12). The equipment had been purchased from a station at Fasrudsfjord in Iceland. Photos suggest that there were at least two inclined railway tracks leading up from the shore; one, illustrated below, runs from the main jetty, whilst the other was alongside a slipway.

However, the catches from the waters around the Falklands were less good than those at South Georgia and much equipment was dismantled and taken to Leith Harbour after only a short life. Machine tools and a boiler were reported in 1988 to be still lying in situ, so there may still be relics of railway tracks or wagons.

http://www.railwaysofthefarsouth.co.uk/11cwhaling.html

Theres photos if you scroll down.

Fratton Fred

It was scrap merchants dismantling a South Georgia whaling station that kicked off the trouble 30 years ago.

Einhard

BostonB wrote: »

I wasn't justifying anything. Just pointing out the reality.

I don't think historical precedent is the same thing as contemporary reality.

More and more, it is about peoples' wishes and less about who has the bigger stick.

BostonB

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think historical precedent is the same thing as contemporary reality.

More and more, it is about peoples' wishes and less about who has the bigger stick.

Are you suggesting that Argentina would respect the Falklands peoples wishes if the UK had negligible military resources.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Argentina would respect the Falklands peoples wishes if the UK had negligible military resources.

i think a well known phrase involving the words 'rat' and 'drainpipe' would be applicable.

Self-Determination has been 'the thing' for the best part of 70 years - it being a big part of the UN's charter - but i'm afraid that like most lofty ideals it comes a very poor second to realpolitik when they clash (and they often don't), and the UN (by which i mean the GA and the secretariat) is as guilty as anyone else for doing it.

pretty much every year Argentina takes some protest over the FI to the UN deconisation committee, and despite the Argentine protest being diametricly opposed to the principle of self-determination so enshrined in the UN, that august body passes it every time. the LA countries support it because it keeps Argentina needing their diplomatic support, and the secertariat never say 'look, this is against the UN rules, piss off' because if you want a career in the UN, you don't side with the US or UK.

high ideals get a better hearing than they have in the past, but the deciding factor has always been, and will always be, vital national interests (or, in the case of the secretariat, vital personal or ideological interests).

Einhard

BostonB wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Argentina would respect the Falklands peoples wishes if the UK had negligible military resources.

No I'm suggesting that "more and more", the right to self-determination is recognised as an important right, and one to be respected.

eg. do you think 100 years ago that Britain's stance on the matter would have been determined by the wishes of the islanders?

Lemming

Einhard wrote: »

No I'm suggesting that "more and more", the right to self-determination is recognised as an important right, and one to be respected.

Do you think a country that invaded said same community only thirty years ago and changed its constitution in the 1990s to make it incumbent on the governemnt of the day seek to gain control over said same community has matured in any way shape or form to recognise that right?

eg. do you think 100 years ago that Britain's stance on the matter would have been determined by the wishes of the islanders?

One hundred years ago, World War I wasn't yet a figment of someone's over-active imagination. Women's emancipation was a fairly new idea - having only really begun some forty years earlier - that's forty years in an era of no internet, tv, radio, etc. The old empires still held sway and generally was a very different era.

BostonB

Einhard wrote: »

No I'm suggesting that "more and more", the right to self-determination is recognised as an important right, and one to be respected.

eg. do you think 100 years ago that Britain's stance on the matter would have been determined by the wishes of the islanders?

TBH I don't think its entirely altruistic now. With the claims to extend seabed territory and surveys for oil.

BostonB

Lemming wrote: »

....One hundred years ago, World War I wasn't yet a figment of someone's over-active imagination. ....

100 yrs ago it was 1912. It was in the middle of an arms race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought#Anglo-German_arms_race